7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 1/24

How Corporations Use Global Investment Rules to

Undermine a Sustainable Future

 U n f a i r ,

 U n s u s t a i n a b l e ,   a n d

 U n d e r  t h e

  R a d a r

Written by

Thomas Mc Donagh

A publication from

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 2/24

ii

Unair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar 

by Thomas Mc Donagh

Edited by Jim Shultz

Research support: Aldo Orellana Lopez

Prooreading: Maddy Ryle

Layout: Anders Vang Nielsen

Cover drawing: Emily Ibarra

Published by

The Democracy Center

www.democracyctr.org

Copyright © The Democracy Center 2013

This work is made available under the terms o a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. http://creativecom-

mons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

About the Publication

 The AuthorThomas is originally rom Dublin, Ireland. He obtained his masters degree rom the Schoo

o Politics & International Relations at University College Dublin in 2006. He has worked at

various grassroots organisations in Latin America including research and communications

support or a Colombian ood sovereignty campaign in 2011. He has worked at the De-

mocracy Center in Bolivia since early 2012 where he coordinates the Network or Justice in

Global Investment, assists with advocacy training projects and provides research support or

the Center’s climate change work.

  The Organisations

Founded in San Francisco in 1992, The Democracy Center works globally to help citizens

understand and inuence the public decisions that impact their lives. Through a combina

tion o investigation and reporting, advocacy training, and leading international citizen

campaigns, we have worked with social and environmental justice activists in more than

three-dozen countries on fve continents. As The Democracy Center begins its third decade

a special emphasis o our work is strengthening citizen action on the global climate crisis

and helping citizens challenge the power o corporations.

 

The Democracy Center has partnered with the Institute or Policy Studies, based in Wash-

ington D.C., to create the Network or Justice in Global Investment, which aims to advance

new rules and institutions to govern investment and fnance, in ways that support airness

 justice, and environmental sustainability.

For more inormation in Spanish and English, see:www.justinvestment.org

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 3/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

As Thomas Mc Donagh writes in this report,

one o the undamental global challengesthat we ace in this century is how to do two

things simultaneously. One is enable billions

o people across the world to lit themselves

rom the suerings o poverty and the other

is avoid pushing the planet o a cli toward

dangerous and irreversible environmental

changes. Under any circumstances doing

both these things would be difcult, but

there is also a set o powerul orces at work

that make what is difcult and urgent almost

impossible. These orces are the powerulinternational corporations that seem set to

autopilot on a course that wreaks havoc on

our environment.

These corporations – oil conglomerates, coal

companies, mining operations, and others –

are directed by people and backed by sources

o capital that shit and change by the hour.

But what remains permanent is the set o

programmed commands that drive their de-

cision-making: to maximise the earnings otheir shareholders and executives even i that

comes at the expense o irreversible damage

to the planet. To be sure, there are thousands

o honest businesses in the world that do not

operate in just this way, but in the behaviour

o some o the largest it is easy to see exactly

this kind o proft-seeking programming run

amok.

This report is about one o the most impor-

tant yet little understood weapons that thesecorporations have constructed to deend

themselves rom challenge: a vast global web

o international trade and investment agree-

ments and a corporate-riendly tribunal sys-

tem designed to enorce the rights that those

agreements grant to corporations.

Consider this scenario: as you pull up to a

trafc light two police ofcers on motorcy-cles stop on either side o you. One ofcer

commands you to go on the green light. The

ofcer on the other side calls out or you to

go on the red. Which one do you listen to?

Today many governments are caught in just

this position in debates over how to steer

their nation’s economic and social develop-

ment. From one side comes the demand rom

citizens, social movements and international

agreements to adopt a course o “sustaina-

ble development” – an approach based onprotecting the earth or uture generations.

From the other side come global corporations

demanding unhindered access to mineral

and metal mining, private control o water,

nuclear development, and other proft-mak-

ing ventures.

The power balance between the two, how-

ever, could hardly be more lopsided. In the

end advocates or sustainable development

policies can do little more than advocate,and the international agreements that back

them have no actual authority or teeth. In-

ternational corporations, on the other hand,

can orce governments beore international

investment tribunals and compel them to

hand over hundreds o millions o dollars in

compensation. In short, the police ofcer on

one side can do little more than yell, but the

other can write a very expensive ticket.

The result is a system that undermines de-mocracy and poses a very serious threat to

the uture.

For more than two decades the Democra-

cy Center has worked with citizen activists

across the world to help them understand

the public issues that impact their lives and

to have an inuence on those public deci-sions. Our work on international investment

rules began when one o the most signifcant

cases brought under this system – the Bech-

tel Corporation’s $50 million suit against Bo-

livians ater the Cochabamba Water Revolt

– happened on our doorstep. The Democra-

cy Center helped lead the global eort that

orced Bechtel to drop the case. That expe-

rience underscored how some o the threats

to our democracy are careully disguised in

complexity and it is in these cases that bettercitizen understanding is especially urgent.

The report you are about to read examines

this conict between sustainable develop-

ment and international investment rules. At

the Democracy Center we believe deeply in

the potential power that activist democracy

always oers us to shape our world. We hope

this report moves and inspires others to join

the eort to dismantle a system that is de-

signed to keep that activist democracy out osome o the most important decisions o our

time.

Jim Shultz 

Executive Director 

The Democracy Center 

Foreword

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 4/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

iv

The Democracy Center is deeply indebted to

its partners around the world who have con-tributed ideas not only to this report but to

our thinking over many years. This includes

our close colleagues at the Institute or Pol-

icy Studies and the Transnational Institute,

including Manuel Perez Rocha, Sarah An-

derson, Cecilia Olivet and Pietje Vervest. We

would also like to express our appreciation to

Gina Lucarelli at the United Nations Devel-

opment Program and Cynthia Williams rom

the University o Illinois who gave us some

guidance regarding the current publication.

We are also indebted to our Latin American

colleagues with whom we collaborate regu-

larly on the issues raised in this report. For

their tireless support, we are particular grate-

ul to our colleagues and riends at the Solón

Foundation in Bolivia, Elizabeth Peredo and

Alexandra Flores, and to Alberto Villarreal

rom REDES, Friends o the Earth Uruguay.

Like most Democracy Center projects, this one

was very much a team eort. I would like to

express my gratitude to all o the Democracy

Center sta or their support. To our design

whizz Anders Vang Nielsen or his creativity,

commitment and energy. To our communica-

tions director Maddy Ryle or her discerning

eye or detail and general wise counsel. To

Leny Olivera Rojas and Sian Cowman or

their wealth o ideas and general support.To Rebecca Hollender or her contribution to

our section on ´Vivir Bien’. To Aldo Orellana

Lopez or his research support, his contribu-

tion to ´Vivir Bien’ and his accompaniment

every step o the way on this project - gracias

compañero! And to Democracy Center d irec-

tor Jim Shultz or sharing his analytical clarity,

his editorial are and invaluable grace and

good humour over countless coee conver-sations, this project owes him a great debt

o gratitude.

And o course to the communities and cam-

paigners in Latin America and around the

world at the rontline o the struggles ea-

tured in this report, to whom we express our

most humble admiration and solidarity.

Thomas Mc Donagh

Author 

Acknowledgements

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 5/24

How Corporations Use Global Investment Rules

to Undermine a Sustainable Future

Unfair,Unsustainable,  and

Under the Radar

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 6/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

vi

ContentsAbout the Publication ii

Foreword iii

Acknowledgements iv

I. Introduction 1

II. Sustainable Development and

Corporate Power - The Inherent Confict 2

Sustainable development:

the wise consensus 2

Serious progress on sustainable developmentremains dangerously stalled 3

Corporate interests

- the powerul pressure rom the other direction 4

III. International Investment Rules and Arbitration

Tribunals – The New Corporate Weapon

Threatening Sustainable Development 7

The international investment rules regime 7

International investment cases – the current battlefeld 10

‘Under the Radar’ - A Summary 12

IV. Challenging The Investment Rules System 13

Current challenges to the system 13

Fighting specifc cases 13 

The development o an alternative vision 

or international investment rules 13 

Challenges by governments to the system 14 

Preventing uture ree trade and investment 

agreements based on the current model 14 

V. Conclusion 16

Resource Box - For More Inormation 17

Endnotes 18

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 7/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

ACROSS THE WORLD the natural systems

that have supported human lie on the planetare being stretched, some to breaking point1.

What science has been telling us or decades

is now making itsel elt in the most unmis-

takable ways. From record land and sea tem-

peratures to unprecedented Arctic ice-cap 

and glacier melt2; rom accelerated biodiver-

sity loss to the depletion o fsh stocks3; and

rom deorestation to extreme weather con-

ditions4, what was once presented to us on

charts and graphs can now be elt in the daily

lives o millions o people across the world5.

And as the evidence accumulates, the mes-

sage becomes ever clearer: the patterns o

production and consumption that have dom-

inated economic development, especially in

the global North, are incompatible with the

earth’s natural boundaries and must change

urgently.

Simultaneously, levels o poverty and in-

equality persist in many parts o the world

alongside ever-greater demand or the socialand economic development that will allow

people to meet their needs and ulfl their

potential. Fitting these two realities together

is the challenge o the 21st Century, and one

that some activists and policy makers have

been grappling with or many years.

Over the last three decades a consensus has

slowly emerged around a set o basic frstprinciples upon which to base responses to

this challenge: recognition and respect or

the earth’s natural boundaries; incorporat-

ing environmental and social concerns into

what were previously purely economic deci-

sions; and meeting the needs o the present

without compromising the ability o uture

generations to meet their own needs. Taken

together these principles orm the oundation

o “sustainable development”.

However, the movement to steer public policy

in the direction o sustainable and inclusive

development aces signifcant winds blowing

in precisely the opposite direction. Attempts

to implement policies based on these prin-

ciples are limited by the constraints o inter-

national economic systems and regulations.

One o the least understood but most pow-

erul o these is the system o international

investment rules and the arbitration tribunals

that enorce them.

Over the course o more than thirty years

national governments around the world

have bound their nations to thousands o

complex bilateral and multilateral trade and

IntroductionI.“Trade and investment agreements 

allow these corporations to be above 

our national sovereignty and even our 

country’s constitution.” 

- Francisco Pineda  

Goldman Prize 2011

    F    I    G    U    R    E

    1 .    1

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 8/24

2

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

investment agreements. The aim o these has

been to open up new markets or interna-

tional investors, oten to provide access to

raw materials, and usually accompanied by

a weakening o the labour, health and envi-ronmental protections that lie at the heart o

sustainable development policies.

This expanding web o international trade

and investment agreements has enshrined

into international law a collection o pow-

erul corporate rights and an unaccounta-

ble, undemocratic system o international

arbitration tribunals to enorce those rights.

When the investments or proft opportuni-

ties o corporations are aected by a gov-

ernment policy, even i these policies are

in complete accordance with national laws

and the national constitution, corporations

can take legal action against governments

or hundreds o millions o dollars in theseinternational tribunals. The number o these

cases has exploded in recent years. The result

is not only huge transers o public resources

rom already strained treasuries (mostly rom

developing countries) to private corporations,

but also a dangerous reezing eect on the

willingness o policy makers to implement

policies in the public interest or ear o costly

international arbitration cases.

As we approach a set o ominous tipping

points in terms o many o the earth’s nat-

ural systems, there has never been a more

urgent time or activists, academics, develop-

ment workers and others to understand thestructural pressures that work against the

implementation o social and environmental

policies that prioritise human rights while

respecting nature’s boundaries. This paper

aims to shed an urgent public light on one o

those constraints: the system o internation-

al investment rules and arbitration tribunals,

and how it is being used to resist and attack

sustainable development eorts.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC development that

respects nature’s boundaries and incorpo-

rates the broad interests o all citizens is in

direct conict with the interests o global cor-

porations and the conict is not an accident.

That conict is one o the most urgent rea-

sons why, despite the growing sustainability

consensus, so little progress has been made

and so many initiatives and policies have

been stymied.

Sustainable development:the wise consensusThe contradictions inherent in the relentless

consumption o natural resources and unre-

strained economic growth on a fnite planet

have gradually evolved rom being an ob-

scure interest o environmentalists and aca-

demics in the 1970s to becoming a central

plank o international debate today.

In early landmark publications such as The

Limits to Growth6 (1972) the consequences

o unchecked economic growth with fnite

resources were predicted. The message was

simple but compelling: i the human ecolog-

ical ootprint (our resource use plus our pol-

lution) continues to grow beyond the earth’s

physical limitations (capacity to renew natu-

ral resources and absorb pollution), natural

systems will begin to collapse. In 1998 the

UN-commissioned Brundtland Report7 (also

known as “Our Common Future”) synthe-

sised many o the emerging sustainability-re-

lated concepts into a defnition o sustainable

development that would gradually become

embedded in public policy discourse and

II.“It’s like a quiet, slow-moving coup d’état.” 

Lori Wallach 

Director o the Global Trade Watch 

division o Public Citizen 

Sustainable Development andCorporate Power - The InherentConict

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 9/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

the popular imagination: “development that

meets the needs o the present without com-

promising the ability o uture generations to

meet their own needs”. The report raised the

profle o social and environmental sustain-ability in development debates and helped

to push concepts such as intergenerational

equity (the injustice o leaving depleted or

exhausted natural systems behind or uture

generations), global interdependence (one

planet, interconnected and thereore interde-

pendent), the dependence o economics on

the environment, (sustainable environmental

stewardship = sustainable economy) and

the triple bottom line (our natural environ-

ment and societies should not be sacrifcedor short-term economic interests) rom the

margins to the centre o the global debate.

Given that many o the issues in question

when discussing sustainable development -

rom climate change to cross border pollution

to international energy networks - require

cooperation between states, an intergov-

ernmental negotiation process was initiated

in an attempt to reach a commonly agreed

upon policy ramework.

Ater several international gatherings in the

1970s and 80s, negotiations began in ear-

nest twenty years ago at the well-known Rio

Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In

Rio that year governments ormally recog-

nised the need to begin to adopt patterns

o production and consumption that were in

harmony with nature when they signed up to

the Rio Principles8, and most o them under-

took commitments to begin moving in thatdirection by signing the Convention on Bio-

logical Diversity, the Convention on Climate

Change, and Agenda 21i.

i Agenda 21 is an action agenda or sustain-

ability committed to at the Rio Earth summit in

1992. It includes a range o objectives, policy

recommendations and budget estimates to

These commitments would be renewed ten

years later at the Summit on Sustainable De-

velopment in Johannesburg in 2002 with the

signing o the Johannesburg Plan o Imple-

mentation (JPOI)9, and again at the Rio+20meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, on the

twenty year anniversary o the frst Earth

Summit.

The introduction to the outcome document

signed by governments at the Rio+20 sum-

mit states:

We therefore acknowledge the need to 

further mainstream sustainable develop- 

ment at all levels integrating economic,

social and environmental aspects…We recognize that…changing unsustainable 

and promoting sustainable patterns of 

consumption and production…are overar- 

assist government policy making or sustain-

able development. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/

agenda21/index.shtml 

ching objectives of, and essential require- 

ments for, sustainable development.10 

One o the proposals emerging rom the

Rio+20 conerence was or the establishmento a set o sustainable development goals

(SDGs) to help to mainstream environmental

sustainability in international development

planning. Worldwide consultations began in

2013 on these goals and they are likely to

become a centrepiece o the policy rame-

work or international development that will

replace the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) when they expire in 2015.

Serious progress on sustainable develop-ment remains dangerously stalledThe world suers no shortage o ormal

declarations and recognitions in relation to

sustainable development principles and ob-

 jectives. I declarations were all that is need-

ed to make them a reality we wouldn’t be

acing the numerous interrelated crises that

we do today. Two decades ater the frst Rio

F   I    G   U  R  E  

2   .1  

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 10/24

4

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

conerence the unortunate conclusion is that

governments haven’t made anywhere near

the progress needed on sustainable develop-

ment, as the planet hurtles towards a series

o ominous environmental tipping points. The

UN system itsel has recognised this and Mil-

lennium Development Goal 7 – ensuring en-

vironmental sustainability - is nowhere near

being achieved by 201511.

The hard act is that economic inequality and

environmental degradation persist, while the

dominant patterns o production and con-

sumption that have brought many o our nat-

ural support systems to the verge o collapse

continue unabated. The lack o real progress

at climate change negotiations is another

disappointing and dangerous indicator o

overall (lack o) progress.

Corporate interests - the powerul pres-sure rom the other directionThe push towards global sustainable devel-

opment policies is about moving in a new

direction in terms o how our economies

interact with our societies and the natural

environment. Yet at the same time there is

another set o orces pushing hard in exactly

the opposite direction: global corporations

whose entire business plans and utures are

based on the existing model o converting

natural resources into profts today, regard-less o the environmental impacts now and in

the uture. To ignore this conict is to act as

i the move toward sustainable development

exists in a happy airytale with no powerul

actors in opposition.

Any careul look at the last thirty years o

global policymaking reveals the construction

o two parallel and contradictory movements

to shape the course o development policy.

One is the global drive towards sustainable

development policies discussed above, much

o which aims directly at the environmental

and social abuses o international corpora-

tions. The other has been the decades-long

eort to orce developing economies to im-

plement policies designed to attract oreign

corporations and the oreign investment pre-

scribed as the key to economic health.

These policies aimed at promoting oreign

investment have been explicitly designed to

remove the limits on what those oreign cor-

porations are allowed to do once they take

up local residence. Across the world many

governments have adhered to an economic

view that growth in the economy (and the

retention o their political power) depends

    F

    I    G    U    R    E

    2 .    2

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 11/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

on attracting oreign investment, regardless

o the strings and costs that come with it. As

a result, governments oten go to extreme

measuresii (see Stabi-

lization Clauses andHuman Rights below)

to attract such invest-

ment and are then un-

willing to ully regulate

investments to ensure

that they contribute to-

wards sustainable de-

velopment policy goals.

O the 100 largest economies in the world

today, 41 are not countries they are corpora-tions and there is little question as to the im-

mense impact that they have over our lives.

ii Stabilization Clauses and Human Rights, a

2009 study by the ofces o the then Special

Representative to the UN Secretary General on

Business and Human Rights in collaboration

with the International Finance Corporation at

the World Bank looked at the nature and ex-

These incredibly powerul institutions can put

our health at risk, determine our well-being

at work, and defne the hazards we ace

as consumers and

those which aectthe natural envi-

ronment in which

we live. When we

combine this with

the ways in which

their colossal fnan-

cial resources allow

them to shape key

parts o our politics

and our culture, we get a sense o the threat

that they pose. In many ways we are impact-ed more deeply by the actions o corporations

than we are by the actions o our own gov-

tent o current ‘stabilization clauses’- contracts

signed between governments and oreign

investors that oer investors exemptions rom

all new environmental and social laws or oer

them compensation or costs o compliance. O

the 75 contracts and model contracts rom non

ernments. As in the legend o Doctor Frank-

enstein, the creations really have become

more powerul than their creators.

As corporations wield this power over ourlives, what criteria do they employ? Three

undamental rules guide much o corporate

decision-making:

• Legal and fduciary obligations that

press corporations to maximise shareholder

proft;

• When shares are publicly traded, de-

mands rom the marketplace or corpora-

tions to perorm well in the stock exchange,

especially in relatively short time-rames;

• The special inuence o large, inuential

activist-shareholders (oten other corpora-

tions) and o corporate executives who are

oten major shareholders themselves.

Taken together these criteria operate on the

modern corporation much the same way as a

program operates on a computer, driving its

actions without attention to other consider-

ations or the personal morality o individu-al corporate leaders. In the case o modern

corporations what oten gets let out o that

operating program is any serious (as opposed

to tokenistic) consideration o the well-be-

ing o communities and the environment.

It should come as no surprise, then, that in

country ater country and with corporation

ater corporation we see mineral extraction

that decimates local communities and water

sources; land grabbing and evictions that de-

stroy ood and land sovereignty; and the ram-pant dumping o carbon into the atmosphere

OECD (Organisation or Economic Cooperation

and Development) countries studied, 44 (59%)

oered such exemptions and/or compensation

to corporations or compliance with all new

laws.

“Current international investment rules encourage governments to at- 

tract oreign investment by any means 

necessary – regardless o the costs or 

long-term sustainability and demo- 

cracy.” 

- Sarah Anderson,

Global Economy Project Director,

Institute or Policy Studies 

  F  I  G  U  R  E

  2 .  3

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 12/24

6

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

which has brought us to a breaking point in

terms o climate change.

In the ace o any conict as clear as that

between sustainable development and cor-porate interests, the essential arbiter must

be the democratic process. Public policies –

be they local, national or international – set

the rules. It is in these arenas that citizens

have waged battles to make sustainable de-

velopment and concern or the environment

and uture generations a priority. Across the

world grassroots movements have gainedpower and orced their governments to act –

on public control over water in Bolivia, block-

ing contaminating gold mines in El Salvador,

opposition to nuclear power in Germany. It

is in the ace o such citizen movements and

victories that corporations have developed

their deence system against democracy: the

global web o international investment rules.

    F    I    G    U    R    E

    2 .    4

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 13/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

MUCH OF THE attention paid to sustainable

and inclusive development ocuses on the

actions that governments must take to pro-

mote it. Some more progressive governments

are openly supportive o this important policy

shit, other governments are openly hostile

to it. But in all cases governments are un-

der enormous political pressure rom corpo-

rations to keep their proft-making interests

sae rom the incursion o environmental

protections and other policies and rules that

threaten them. In order to protect their in-

terests in this inevitable conict corporations

are able to deploy a series o complex inter-

national economic rules. One o these is the

ever-expanding system o trade and invest-ment agreements and the secretive tribunals

empowered to enorce the rights that they

grant to corporations – institutions that can

orce the hand o governments and block de-

mocracy.

 The international investment rulesregimeThe nations o the world today are covered

by an expanding webiii o over three thou-

sand bilateral and multilateral trade andinvestment agreements. A key provision in

many o these agreements is the right o cor-

porations to take legal action against govern-

iii According to UNCTAD new investment

agreements have been concluded at a rate

o more than one per week or the past ew

years.

ments when their public policies aect those

corporations’ proft opportunities. Under the

current investment rules regime, public poli-

cies such as the denial o a mining permit or

stronger public health warnings on cigarettes

can give corporations grounds to take legal

action against governments, not only based

on what they invested in the country, but

based on what they claim they could have

potentially earned on that investment over

years, even decades.

An example o this system in action can be

seen in El Salvador, where rural communi-

ties were concerned about the contamination

o their local rivers and water supplies with

chemicals such as arsenic by a Canadian

gold mining enterprise (Pacifc Rim). Organ-

ising against great odds and in ace o clear

danger (three activists were murdered), the

communities o Las Cabañas successully

pressured the Salvadoran national govern-

ment to reuse the necessary permits or the

mine. For all concerned this was considered

a huge step orward or sustainable water

management in the country, preserving the

country´s water or uture generations and

putting the right to water beore the proft

making interests o a mining corporation.

In retaliation however, Pacifc Rim charged

that the government’s reusal to grant the

permit was a violation o its right to “air and

equitable treatment” and is now suing the

Salvadoran people or $315 million in the

International Investment Rules And

Arbitration Tribunals – The NewCorporate Weapon ThreateningSustainable Development

III.“When I wake up at night and think 

about arbitration, it never ceases to 

amaze me that sovereign states have 

agreed to investment arbitration at 

all [...] Three private individuals are 

entrusted with the power to review,

without any restriction or appeal pro- 

cedure, all actions o the government,all decisions o the courts, and all 

laws and regulations emanating rom

parliament.“ 

- Fernández-Armesto  

arbitrator rom Spain.

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 14/24

8

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

World Bank’s trade court. The corporation

is demanding compensation or profts that

it will no longer earn. Regardless o wheth-

er the government wins the case or not, it

is spending millions o dollars deending it-sel, money that could otherwise have gone

on teachers and doctors in a country where 

42.5% o the population lives below the

poverty line. I the tribunal rules in avour o

the corporation, as they did in 70% o rul-

ings in 2012, the money diverted rom the

public treasury can easily amount to tens or

hundreds o millions o dollars, which in this

case would end up going to a Canadian min-

ing corporation and a ew wealthy corporate

lawyers.

The El Salvador case is just one o hundreds

o such cases that corporations have brought

against governments around the world. At

the most commonly used tribunal system

ICSID (the World Bank’s International Centre

or the Settlement o Investment Disputes)

the number o cases has increased rom 26

in 1990 to over 400 cases today. In 2012,

62 new cases were initiated, constituting the

highest number o disputes ever fled in one

year12. And these are the known cases - most

other arbitration orums do not maintain a

public registry o claims, so the actual num-

ber is most likely considerably higher.

Described by leading law academics as

lacking airness and balance, including ba-

sic requirements o openness and judicial

independence, the investor-state dispute

arbitration system eectively operates as a

privatised justice system or global corpo-

rations. Unlike civil cases brought in local

courts, where proceedings are generally held

in public and geographically close to the peo-

ple impacted, investor-state arbitration cases

take place in distant international institutions

where aected communities are completely

removed and where who testifes and what

they say remains secret. The cases are argued

behind closed doors by a handul o law-

yers, mostly rom North America and Europe,

with most respondents being governments

rom the global South. As well as ailing to

satisy basic requirements o procedural air-

    F    I    G    U    R    E

    3 .    1

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 2    0   1   2   

2    0   1   1   

2    0   1    0   

2    0    0    9   

2    0    0    8   

2    0    0   7   

2    0    0    6   

2    0    0    5   

2    0    0   4   

2    0    0    3   

2    0    0   2   

2    0    0   1   

2    0    0    0   

1    9    9    9   

1    9    9    8   

1    9    9   7   

1    9    9    6   

1    9    9    5   

1    9    9   4   

1    9    9    3   

   C  u   m  u   l   a   t   i  v   e   n  u   m   b   e

   r   o   f   c   a   s   e   s

Year

Known Investor-State Cases

Source: UNCTAD

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 15/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

ness, serious questions have been raised as

to the impartiality o the lawyers involved in

this system. Many o them will switch rom

being (supposedly impartial) arbiters in one

case, to being corporate lawyers in the next,

and many also double as both corporate and

government advisers. This small network o

global investment lawyers maintains a huge

vested interest in perpetuating and expand-

ing the current system. The overall impact o

this system is to aord multinational corpo-

rations an eective ‘Bill o Rights’ that super-

sedes government policies in a broad range

o areas (see Figure 3.2).

These rights aorded to corporations give

them the power to undermine public inter-

est laws and regulations, but come with no

new corresponding obligations to support

public welare or the environment, and no

corresponding recourse or governments i a

corporation commits human rights abuses or

F   I    G   U  R  E  

 3   .2  

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 16/24

10

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

breaks environmental regulations. It really is

a case o ‘heads I win, tails you lose’.

The result o the expansion o investor-state

cases under this international investmentrules system has not only been to drain pub-

lic treasuries but, even more dangerously, to

dampen the willingness o governments to

act in the public’s deence or ear o costly

international arbitration cases. The system

eectively puts a straitjacket on governments

in terms o their ability to implement public

interest policies.

In a recent case the South Korean govern-

ment planned to introduce a low-carbon in-

centive system in the auto industry as part

o a government project to reduce national

greenhouse gas emissions. That move, how-

ever, has been stalled because o ears that

the law would breach a provision in the US-

South Korea ree trade agreement. I the plan

were to go orward the government would

be exposing itsel to attacks in internation-

al arbitration tribunals, and so it has been

shelved. In a current case in Costa Rica In-

fnito Gold, a Canadian mining corporation,has threatened to take the state to interna-

tional arbitration seeking $1 billion in com-

pensation or breach o the Canada-Costa

Rica bilateral investment treaty (BIT) ater the

country’s Supreme Court denied permission

or an open pit gold mine not ar rom one o

the country’s major river systems. The ear o

such cases results in a chilling eect on the

willingness o governments around the world

to pursue sustainable development policy in-

itiatives precisely at the time when they areso badly needed.

International investment cases – thecurrent battlefeldThe El Salvador - Pacifc Rim case eatured

above is emblematic o dozens o dangerous

legal actions that have been taken by corpo-

rations against governments on issues rang-

ing rom mining to water to nuclear power.

The one-sided rights aorded to corporations

and the tribunal system that enorces them

are being used by corporations to subvert na-

tional regulations and laws on a whole rangeo sustainable development-related issues.

Other notable cases include:

Bechtel vs. Bolivia: In 2000, ollowing over-

night water rate increases averaging more

than 50%, the people o Cochabamba, Boliv-

ia rebelled and orced the reversal o govern-

ment and World Bank policy to privatise their

water system. Using a bilateral investment

treaty signed in 1992 between Holland and

Bolivia Bechtel, one o the wealthiest corpo-rations in the world, was able to bring a le-

gal action against Bolivia or $50 million or

loss o uture earnings, having invested just

$1 million. Under enormous pressure rom

a global action campaign, Bechtel oreited

the case in 2006 or a token payment o .30

US cents.

Metalclad vs. Mexico:  When Mexico de-

nied the U.S.-based corporation Metalclad

the permit to operate a toxic waste site andinstead declared the area a natural reserve

to protect the environment, Metalclad retal-

iated by launching a lawsuit or $90 million.

The corporation used chapter 11 investor

protections in the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA) to demand compensa-

tion or damages and loss o uture earnings.

In August 2000 Metalclad was awarded

$16.7 million by an ICSID arbitration panel,

later reduced to $15.6 million in the courts o

British Columbia.

Vattenall vs. Germany:  As a response to

increased public opposition to nuclear ener-

gy ater the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power

plant disaster in Japan, the German govern-

ment decided to renounce the use o nuclear

power and closed down two o its nuclear

power plants. As a result, in May 2012 Swed-

ish energy company Vattenall took legal ac-

tion against Germany in ICSID or breaching

its legal obligations in the Energy Charter

Treaty, demanding €700 million in compen-

sation.

Chemtura vs. Canada: Following a success-

ul advocacy campaign by Canadian armers,

the Canadian Pesticide Regulation Agency

banned agricultural pesticide Lindane in the

early 2000s on health and environmental

grounds. Agrochemical frm Chemtura lob-

bied unsuccessully against the ban, then at-

tempted to challenge it in the Federal Court

o Canada, and fnally brought a legal action

against Canada under the NAFTA Chapter 11investor protections. Although the Canadian

government eventually deeated this case,

the Canadian legal costs were upward o

$3 million, money rom the national budget

that was spent deending a public interest

decision made by a democratically elected

government.

‘Fracking’ in Quebec: The Quebec regional

government’s moratorium on unconventional

gas extraction through hydraulic racturing or‘racking’ is coming under increased pressure

as aected oil and gas corporations threaten

to bring legal action under NAFTA chapter

11 investment protections. One such cor-

poration, Lone Pine Resources Inc., is using

the investor rights chapter in NAFTA to chal-

lenge the Quebec moratorium and demand

US$250 million (€191 million) in compensa-

tion. The company is claiming that the Que-

bec moratorium is an “arbitrary, capricious,

and illegal revocation o [its] valuable rightto mine or oil and gas”

Doe Run vs. Peru: La Oroya, a town in south-

ern Peru, was named by the Blacksmith In-

stitute in 2006 as one o the top ten most

polluted sites in the world. Doe Run Peru, a

subsidiary o the Renco Group, took over a

lead smelting plant there in 1997. The com-

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 17/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

pany consistently ailed to meet an environ-

mental cleanup commitment undertaken as a

condition o sale. Citing economic difculties

as its reason or not meeting its promises, the

company was eventually moved into bank-ruptcy. Renco is now suing the Peruvian 

people or $800 million.

Occidental Petroleum vs. Ecuador:  Occi-

dental aces a range o allegations in Ec-

uador in relation to abuses o the country’s

human rights, social and environmental laws.

The corporation was ound to have breached

contract terms in relation to a share trans-

er deal, as a result o which its contract was

cancelled. Occidental immediately retaliatedby fling a billion dollar ICSID claim. In Octo-

ber 2012 the Ecuadorian state was ordered

to pay $1.7 billion plus interest in compen-

sation, the equivalent o fteen years worth 

o social welare payments or the country.

The Ecuadorian government is attempting to

appeal the ruling.

Maersk Oil & Anadarko vs. Algeria:  The

Algerian parliament passed a windall tax in

2006 in an eort to retain more o the ben-efts o the country’s oil wealth and preserve

the nation’s resources or uture generations

by slowing down oil exploration. In retalia-

tion, the Danish corporation Maersk Oil fled

an ICSID claim against the government o

Algeria. Anadarko, a U.S.-based joint ven-

ture partner o Maersk, brought a similar

complaint beore the arbitration tribunal o

the International Chamber o Commerce in

February 2009. The Algerian government and

state-owned company Sonatrach settled with

the corporations in 2012 in a deal worth 

several billion dollars.

Cargill vs. Mexico: When the Mexican gov-

ernment attempted to protect local sugar

producers by taxing imports o high-ructose

corn syrup the American corporation Cargill

struck back with a $77 million lawsuit under

investment protections o NAFTA. Mexico’s

appeal was subsequently rejected and the

government is now under orders to pay the

$77 million plus interest and legal ees to

one o the world’s biggest multinational ood

corporations.

Phillip Morris vs. Uruguay: When the Uru-

guayan government implemented new reg-

ulations designed to protect public health,

such as warnings on cigarette packages,

Philip Morris, one o the largest cigarette

conglomerates in the world, fled an ICSID

lawsuit using the Switzerland-Uruguay bi-

lateral investment treaty. As well as claiming

$2 billion in compensation, Phillip Morris is

asking the government to suspend the newregulations.

(See our  Resource Box  below or urther 

reading on these and other cases) 

In these cases and many others the corpo-

rate rights established in international law

through trade and investment agreements

and enorced by international arbitration

tribunals are compromising countries’ sov-

ereign right to regulate in the public good

through a democratic process. This conict

underscores what makes it so difcult po-

litically or governments to genuinely imple-

ment policies based on sustainable develop-ment principles in environmental protection,

public health, natural resource management

and other areas where corporate profts are

at stake. The resulting reluctance among gov-

ernments to create new legislation or ear o

costly legal actions represents a considerable

constraint on eorts to translate sustainable

and inclusive development commitments into

reality.

In the era o corporate power, the history othe conict between corporations and the

public interest has ollowed the same cycle

as most other conicts: the development o a

weapon is ollowed by the creation o a de-

ence mechanism, which is ollowed, in turn,

by eorts to develop an even more sophisti-

cated weapon to overcome that deence. So

when an abuse by a corporation leads to cit-

izen organising to demand that governments

establish rules to restrict what corporations

can do, corporations predictably come upwith weapons that undermine that deence.

Their latest weapon is this system o interna-

tional investment rules and the private arbi-

tration tribunals that enorce those rules.

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 18/24

12

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

‘Under the Radar’ - A Summary

Illustration: Emily Ibarra

1. Faced with a number o environmental andsocial crises, groups all over the world are organ-

ising to deend their natural resources and public

services and many are beginning to question the

relationship between economic development and

social and environmental well-being. Many are

beginning the move towards a uture based on

the values o sustainability and inclusiveness.

2. Many o these moves come into direct conict

with the interests o transnational corporations

hard-wired to maximise short-term proft and pass

on the environmental and social costs o their op-erations to others.

3. Corporations and governments have entered

into a complex web o trade and investment

agreements that give rights to corporations and

allow them to sue governments in undemocrat-

ic, unaccountable international arbitration courts

when they introduce the very policies required or

this important move.

4. The prolieration o investor-state cases is

resulting not only in huge transers o public re-

sources rom already strained treasuries (mostly

rom developing countries) to private corpora-

tions, but also a dangerous reezing eect on

the willingness o policy makers to implement

policies in the public interest or ear o costly

international arbitration cases.

5. The power o corporations and their use o the

international investment rules system to sue gov-

ernments is undermining responsible policy-mak-

ing and turning what would be an extremely dif-

cult task into an impossible one.

6. Until campaigners working on the issues a-

ected by the investment rules system begin to re-

alise the threat that it represents to a sustainable

uture, progress along the road will remain slow.

1

3

4

5

6

2

*

Regional trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade 

Agreement (NAFTA) or the proposed Transpacifc Partnership (TPP) and bilateral trade and investment agreements between two 

countries, include provisions that allow corporations to sue gov- 

ernments when they eel their rights have been breached by a

government action.

The majority o these cases are heard at the International Centre 

or the Settlement o Investment Disputes (ICSID), an institution o 

the World Bank. But other courts commonly used include ad hoc 

tribunals established under the rules o United Nations Commis- 

sion on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the International 

Court o Arbitration at the International Chamber o Commerce 

(ICC).

The number o these cases has exploded in recent years, rising 

rom less than 100 in 2000 to 518 today. In recent years corpora- 

tions have begun to sue governments or all sorts o policy chang- 

es and regulations when their proft-making is aected.

*

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 19/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

THE BARRIER THAT this system represents to

sustainable and inclusive development and

the importance o challenging it are becom-

ing increasingly clear to a diverse range o

stakeholders around the world.

Trade and investment campaigners have won

important victories in this struggle in the past.

In the 1990s a combination o civil society

pressure and developing country oppositionblocked the creation o a corporate-driven in-

vestment agreement or OECD (Organisation

or Economic Cooperation and Development)

countries. This Multilateral Agreement on In-

vestment (MAI) would have made it much

more difcult or governments to regulate

oreign investors. Then, in Seattle in 1999

and Cancún in 2003, eorts to expand the

remit o the World Trade Organization (WTO)

to include investment and other issues were

stymied by similar alliances. Civil society-lednetworks in Latin America successully op-

posed the Free Trade Area o the Americas

in 2005 and the more recent EU-driven ree

trade agreement or the region (the EU-MER-

COSUR FTA).

Despite these victories the system continues

to expand. Nowhere is this clearer than in the

proposed trade and investment agreement

or the Pacifc region known as the Transpa-

cifc Partnership (see Figure 4.1) .

Current Challenges to the systemThe Democracy Center in Bolivia and the In-

stitute or Policy Studies in Washington have

partnered to create the Network or Justice 

in Global Investment (NJGI), a project to

support challenges to the current system and

to acilitate a debate over a range o alter-

native policy options, including withdrawing

rom the current system, rewriting the rules

to support sustainable development and pro-

tect national sovereignty, and replacing the

system.

Fighting specifc cases As with the historic global citizen victo-

ry over Bechtel, in a variety o campaigns

around the world citizens are banding to-gether to directly challenge specifc cases.

This includes substantial international or-

ganising eorts (as is underway in the Pa-

cifc Rim vs. El Salvador case), the fling o

legal petitions, direct pressure on corporate

ofcials and other tactics. Current cases that

have drawn signifcant citizen action in op-

position to them include Doe Run vs. Peru,

Phillip Morris vs. Uruguay and Pacifc Rim vs.

El Salvador. (More inormation and contacts 

are available in our Resource Box below) 

The Development o an Alternative Vision or International Investment Rules Around the world in Latin America, Arica,

Asia and elsewhere civil society organisa-

tions and policymakers are examining ways

to change the current system in order to bal-

ance the need or legal security o those who

make investments with the absolute right o

societies to decide issues such as sustainable

development policies through a democratic

process.

Looking around at the alternatives to the

current model being discussed, here are six

undamental principles that people are rally-

ing around. (See our  Resource Box below 

or more on Alternatives) 

Challenging The Investment Rules

System

IV.“...the Government does not support 

provisions that would coner great- 

er legal rights on oreign businesses 

than those available to domestic busi- 

nesses. Nor will the Government sup- 

port provisions that would constrain

the ability o Australian governments 

to make laws on social, environmen- tal and economic matters...” 

- Australian Government 

trade policy statement 

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 20/24

14

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

1) Human rights frst:  not allowing cor-

porate rights to come beore human rights.

2) A air dispute resolution system:  the

creation o a new system o dispute reso-lution – including local and regional courts.

3) Binding obligations on corporations: 

mechanisms to ensure the accountability

o corporations regarding how they impact

human, economic, environmental, labour

and social rights.

4) Policy space or economic develop- 

ment:  Eliminate provisions related to Na-

tional Treatment, Minimum Treatment and

Most Favoured Nation (see Figure 3.2,

page 9), and remove prohibitions on per-

ormance requirements to allow space or

policy making or sustainable development.

5) Capital controls to stem fnancial cri- 

sis: The right to restrict and control specu-

lative and destabilising international capital

ows.

6) Restrict the defnition o investment: 

Prevent broad interpretations o whatconstitutes an investment, eliminate the

concept o “indirect expropriation” and

redefne what constitutes productive and

sustainable investments.

Challenges by Governments to the System Campaigners are not the only ones challeng-

ing the investment rules regime. Govern-

ments around the world are slowly waking

up to the threat that the system represents

and beginning to propose alternatives.

In Latin America several countries (Venezuela,

Bolivia and Ecuador so ar) have withdrawn

rom the World Bank’s arbitration body ICSID,

and begun to renounce BITs, while at the re-

gional level talks are underway on the crea-

tion o a UNASUR (Union o South American

Nations) Centre or Investment Dispute Set-

tlement. In April 2011, the Australian Gov-

ernment released a trade policy statement to

the eect that it would no longer be includ-

ing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)

clauses in its uture international investment

agreements, including the TPP. In explaining

its decision, the Government stated that suchprovisions “would give oreign businesses

greater legal rights than domestic businesses

and would constrain the Government’s public

policymaking ability”13. And major reviews

o investment policy are underway in Argen-

tina14, South Arica15 and India16.

Preventing uture ree trade and invest- ment agreements based on the current model Another key battlefeld is the challenge

against uture trade and investment agree-

ments that seek to consolidate the current

system. Some o these include:

Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and 

Trade Agreement:  Trade justice campaign-

ers together with labour, environmental,

indigenous and other groups rom Europe

and Canada are demanding that Canada

and the EU stop negotiating an excessive

and controversial investor rights chapter in

the proposed Comprehensive Economic and

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 21/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

Trade Agreement (CETA). This recent briefng 

by the Transnational Institute, the Council o

Canadians and the Corporate Europe Obser-

vatory revealed that the proposed investor

protection clause in the agreement wouldgrant investors the right to challenge a range

o government decisions, including bans and

regulations or ‘racking’. (See our Resource  

Box  or more inormation on these cam- 

paigns) 

Transpacifc Partnership (TPP):  As noted

above the investor rights being proposed in

the current TPP negotiations would repre-

sent a massive consolidation o the current

system. Despite protests rom the legal pro-

ession and rom some participating gov-

ernments the negotiations continue behind

closed doors and away rom public scrutiny,but open to industry lobbyists. For many cam-

paigners, this is a key current battlefeld.

EU-US Free Trade Agreement: US President

Barack Obama, EU Council President Herman

Van Rompuy and EU Commission President

José Manuel Barroso committed in February

2013 to start EU-US trade and investment

negotiations, which may strongly aect so-

cial, labour and environmental rights on both

sides o the Atlantic and extend the current

investment rules regime.

The growing resistance to the current inter-national investment regime is clear. However

despite localised victories, the system in its

current orm continues to grow. As the exam-

ples laid out above - such as the Transpacifc

Partnership and others - make clear, those

who beneft most rom the system continue

to push or its expansion regardless o the

threat that it poses to sustainable and inclu-

sive development eorts.

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 22/24

16

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

IF YOU SEE a mountain in the distance that

you wish to climb, you need to know beoreyou set out i somebody has built a brick wall

across your path, creating a structural barrier

that will keep you rom getting there. Around

the world a new vision is being pieced to-

gether o how we ought to live on this plan-

et in a way that can ensure social justice

while living within the earth’s natural limits.

Although the nature and emphasis o such

initiatives vary, there is an undeniable thrust

towards placing sustainability at the heart o

development decisions. But it is very clear,

as articulated in this paper, that a powerul

and in some cases impenetrable barrier has

been constructed across the road that takes

us there. And that is the power o global cor-

porations and the system o international in-

vestment rules described here.

The need or a whole new approach to inter-

national investment is increasingly acknowl-

edged. The UN system itsel, in the recent

UNCTAD investment policy ramework or sustainable development, recognised that

investment policy should support national in-

dustrial policy and development plans. While

this is welcome, the act remains that the

huge number o existing investment agree-

ments - and their expansion through deals

such as the Transpacifc Partnership - means

that when governments attempt to regu-

late investment in the interest o national

sustainable development priorities, they will

ace legal attacks by the corporations whose

interests are aected.

So what will it actually take or civil society

organisations, sympathetic governments and

social movements to take down this barrier

so that we can continue to move orward in

the progressive way that is so imperative?

Firstly, we need to unmask the international

investment rules system and begin to commu-

nicate the issue in a way that resonates with

broader audiences. We need to transorm

the issue rom a technical debate among asmall handul o lawyers and advocates and

move it into the mainstream, so that all o the

dierent issues and movements aected by

these rules can become ully aware o what

the system is and how it operates.

We need to base our approach to that system

on one very simple principle: that whatever

rights corporations are granted, be they in-

ternationally or by governments, those rights

are always subservient to human rights andthe rights o uture generations to a planet

on which they can actually make a lie.

And the only way we can ensure that human

rights and the rights o uture generations

are placed above corporations is by linking

together citizens working on issues ranging

rom the right to public control over water,

to public regulation o the tobacco industry,

to people opposing the contamination o a

mine in their community. We have to rec-ognise the common threat that this system

represents in all o these issues and, like the

Lilliputians who tied ropes to Gulliver’s limbs,

begin to build power rom our many separate

actions.

Only in this way can we begin to dismantle

this system o corporate power and the in-

ternational investment rules being unleashed

time and again in deence o the interests o

a minority, with disastrous eects on commu-

nities and the planet.

ConclusionV.“In short, the [investor-state dispute 

arbitration] provisions have been

used to override the jurisdiction o 

domestic legal systems; have ailed to 

meet accepted perceptions o the rule 

o law and the separation o powers; 

have undermined the basic principle 

o judicial independence; and have created a signifcant inequality or 

imbalance between oreign investors 

and domestic investors and produc- 

ers. No sovereign, sel-respecting 

state should accept the dispute arbi- 

tration provision in its present orm.” 

- Former New Zealand Court o 

Appeal  judge Sir Edmund Thomas  

ater leak o proposed investment 

chapter o TPP 

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 23/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

Resource Box- or more inormation

Get inormedwww.justinvestment.org

www.ips-dc.org/globaleconomy

www.tni.org/work-area/trade-investment

Contact Us: contact@justinvestment.org

Sources o inormation on investor-state casesInternational Investment Law and Sustainable Development:

Key Cases 2000-2010 - rom the International Institute or Sus-

tainable Development (IISD)

Case database - rom the International Centre or the Settle-

ment o Investment Disputes (ICSID)

International Investment Arbitration and Public Policy - an

open-access resource or policymakers, researchers and journal-

ists

Fighting specifc casesSome current investor-state cases that are drawing signifcant

citizen action in opposition to them include:

Doe Run vs. Peru: Find out more on the campaign by commu-

nities aected by Doe Run’s operations in La Oroya in southern

Peru, and how the corporation is using the investment rules sys-

tem to avoid accountability to the Peruvian people.

Phillip Morris vs. Uruguay: For more on the campaign against

the tobacco industry’s use o the investment rules system to at-

tack public health legislation in Uruguay, see REDES and Just 

Investment.

Pacifc Rim vs. El Salvador: Find out more on the international 

action campaigns and local initiatives in El Salvador to protectthe country’s water sources rom Canadian mining interests and

how Pacifc Rim is using the investment rules system against the

Salvadoran people.

AlternativesExamples o previous alternative proposals on international in-

vestment rules include:

• the work on Alternatives or the Americas by the Hemi-

spheric Social Alliance

• International Institute or Sustainable Development’smodel 

International Agreement on Investment or Sustainable Devel-

opment.

• this statement by dozens o academics on the international

investment regime.

• the joint proposal by several U.S. environmental, consumer

and other groups.

• this letter signed by more than 250 economists calling or

trade reorms to allow capital controls.

Campaigns against uture agreementsBelow are some links to the campaigns and how to get involved.

Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: 

More inormation here rom Canadian trade justice campaign-

ers, the Council o Canadians and the Seattle2Brussels Network 

on the risks represented by this expansion o the current trade

and investment regime and the struggle to prevent it. See also

this recent briefng by the Transnational Institute, the Council

o Canadians and the Corporate Europe Observatory regarding

the implications o the agreement’s proposed investor protection

clause on governments´ decisions to ban and regulate ‘racking’.

Transpacifc Partnership (TPP): Groups involved in the emerg-

ing campaign to block this trade and investment agreement or

the Pacifc region include: Citizen Trade Campaign, the Council 

o Canadians, Friends o the Earth US and the Network or 

Justice in Global Investment.

EU-US Free Trade Agreement:  Some background here rom

the Seattle2Brussels Network on the campaign against this

planned trade and investment agreement between the European

Union and the United States.

7/30/2019 Under the Radar English Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-radar-english-final 24/24

Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar • The Democracy Center 2013

Endnotes1 Johan Rockstrom and others, “A sae operating space or humanity” Nature, vol. 461, No. 7263, pp. 472-475 (September 2009).

2 http://www.erbol.com.bo/noticia.php?identifcador=2147483963413

3 http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.429.aspx.pd 

4 International Disaster Database http://www.emdat.be/

5 International Union or the Conservation o Nature, “Extinction crisis continues apace”, press release, 3 November 2009,

available rom www.iucn.org.

6 http://www.cluborome.org/?p=326

7 http://www.un-documents.net/wced-oc.htm

8 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Deault.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163

9 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm

10 Rio+20 summit outcome document ‘The Future We Want’

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/476/10/PDF/N1147610.pd?OpenElement

11 http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/English2012.pd 

12 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2013d3_en.pd 

13 http://www.unctad-docs.org/fles/UNCTAD-WIR2012-Chapter-III-en.pd  p.87

14 http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/28/argentina-aces-65bn-dollars-in-claims-plans-to-abandon-international-...

15 http://justinvestment.org/2012/09/south-arica-european-union-lock-horns/

16 http://justinvestment.org/2012/06/india-plans-to-exclude-arbitration-clauses-rom-bits